Okay pubs, here's some real 'liberal' policy to rally around

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
8,687
9,432
113

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,242
9,680
113
This is the downturn causer I’ve been waiting for! I’m gonna pounce!

This would be hard for me to defend.

Those proposed rates are way too extreme and would give a roaring market some serious headwind.

That's not cool.

I get nudging rates up but good grief, that would be a shock.

Not good politically at all either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
7,200
4,290
113
As a lib tard, I hope this is just a negotiating ploy as these proposed capital gains increases are waaaay to aggressive IMO.

Market is reacting to the surprise of no one.

For the record, I'm not down with this. Again hopefully it's just a starting point.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html

This is going to drive us towards an unprecedented short-term pop in M&A. I'm just going to proactively cancel all of my vacation plans now.
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,242
9,680
113
This is going to drive us towards an unprecedented short-term pop in M&A. I'm just going to proactively cancel all of my vacation plans now.

Would you see generational shifts also? Older selling assets to younger who want and can hold on to it longer?

This is a policy proposal that I would understand the backlash if it goes through as is....which it won't.

It does signal intent though.
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
8,079
3,445
113
This is the downturn causer I’ve been waiting for! I’m gonna pounce!
I take it you must not be in that category that earns $1 million or more (who is the apparent target of the possible tax increase) LOL.

What are you thinking about buying, may I ask?

I don't follow as many as I used to, but I did notice that many stocks went down 1-1.5 % today, but RTX only went down 0.15%. I don't yet know why it reacted that way but am checking.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
This is over the top and hopefully bigger economic minds can help him out here.

Bloomberg News reported Thursday afternoon that Biden is planning a capital gains tax hike to as high as 43.4% for wealthy Americans. The proposal would hike the capital gains rate to 39.6% for those earning $1 million or more, up from 20% currently, according to Bloomberg News, citing people familiar with the matter. Reuters and the New York Times later matched the headlines.
“Biden’s proposal effectively doubles the capital gains tax rate on $1 million income earners,” said Jack Ablin, Cresset Capital Management’s founding partner and CIO. “That’s a sizable cost increase to long-term investors. Expect selling this year if investors sense the proposal has a chance of becoming law next year.”
I don't claim to know shit, but it doesn't seem to me that most folks have much to worry about. I guess it all boils down to what "earner" means.
 

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
8,687
9,432
113
I take it you must not be in that category that earns $1 million or more (who is the apparent target of the possible tax increase) LOL.

What are you thinking about buying, may I ask?

I don't follow as many as I used to, but I did notice that many stocks went down 1-1.5 % today, but RTX only went down 0.15%. I don't yet know why it reacted that way but am checking.
I sold most of my AMZN stake at a 300% gain. I have a buy back price in mind once it hits but I don’t know if it will. I’ll likely look for a biotech ETF. I’m under invested there.

No, I don’t make a milly a year. Not even close.
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
8,079
3,445
113
I sold most of my AMZN stake at a 300% gain. I have a buy back price in mind once it hits but I don’t know if it will. I’ll likely look for a biotech ETF. I’m under invested there.

No, I don’t make a milly a year. Not even close.
Dropping AMZN makes sense. It jumped way up last year as people stopped going to stores during Covid's heyday but isn't continuing up very much now. Plus, the hefty AMZN dividend of 00.00% is not real attractive either. Think it through and good luck!
 

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
7,200
4,290
113
Would you see generational shifts also? Older selling assets to younger who want and can hold on to it longer?

This is a policy proposal that I would understand the backlash if it goes through as is....which it won't.

It does signal intent though.

Good questions, it will certainly facilitate an increase in more Baby Boomers selling assets. I'm not sure that is necessarily a good thing because:

1) young people can't afford assets at current valuations,

2) if they can afford assets at current valuations, they are unlikely to get an appropriate risk/return tradeoff,

3) Boomers have benefited the most from a lower tax regime during their income earning years and are now going to reap the rewards for realizing gains prior to tax increases/elimination of cap gains,

4) this somewhat relates to #2, but now young people have to face taxation at double the level of the prior generations in the event that they sell valuable assets

I think young people that support these tax changes are short-sighted in their thinking because eventually they will be the people with the largest income earning streams. Meanwhile, the past generation with the largest prior tax advantaged window squandered any attempts that deserve them saving of health and welfare benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
Good questions, it will certainly facilitate an increase in more Baby Boomers selling assets. I'm not sure that is necessarily a good thing because:

1) young people can't afford assets at current valuations,

2) if they can afford assets at current valuations, they are unlikely to get an appropriate risk/return tradeoff,

3) Boomers have benefited the most from a lower tax regime during their income earning years and are now going to reap the rewards for realizing gains prior to tax increases/elimination of cap gains,

4) this somewhat relates to #2, but now young people have to face taxation at double the level of the prior generations in the event that they sell valuable assets

I think young people that support these tax changes are short-sighted in their thinking because eventually they will be the people with the largest income earning streams. Meanwhile, the past generation with the largest prior tax advantaged window squandered any attempts that deserve them saving of health and welfare benefits.
LOL. Typical JDB "Boomers bad" post. Stealing from the chillen.

I take it you don't think the market will sort this all out?
 

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
7,200
4,290
113
LOL. Typical JDB "Boomers bad" post. Stealing from the chillen.

I take it you don't think the market will sort this all out?

Since when is tax legislation allowing the "market" sort anything out? Your generation had every advantage and squandered it to remain the worst generation in modern history. Now you want young people to bail you out.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
Since when is tax legislation allowing the "market" sort anything out? Your generation had every advantage and squandered it to remain the worst generation in modern history. Now you want young people to bail you out.

Cry me a river, Junior. Just keep making your Social Security and Medicare "contributions" (lol) and I'm good with most anything you can squeeze out of the system.
 

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
7,200
4,290
113
Cry me a river, Junior. Just keep making your Social Security and Medicare "contributions" (lol) and I'm good with most anything you can squeeze out of the system.

You're in the minority. Most of your geriatric peers didn't save nearly enough for retirement. Bunch of freeloaders.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
You're in the minority. Most of your geriatric peers didn't save nearly enough for retirement. Bunch of freeloaders.
Neither did I. I depend on Social Security and Medicare and my part time $10/hr lame ass retirement job to stay afloat. I'd guess my meager portfolio is in the neighborhood of your annual income. So I'm not sure of your point, unless you're trying to be kind to me personally while berating my "peers".
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,457
29,633
113
Margaritaville
Good questions, it will certainly facilitate an increase in more Baby Boomers selling assets. I'm not sure that is necessarily a good thing because:

1) young people can't afford assets at current valuations,

2) if they can afford assets at current valuations, they are unlikely to get an appropriate risk/return tradeoff,

3) Boomers have benefited the most from a lower tax regime during their income earning years and are now going to reap the rewards for realizing gains prior to tax increases/elimination of cap gains,

4) this somewhat relates to #2, but now young people have to face taxation at double the level of the prior generations in the event that they sell valuable assets

I think young people that support these tax changes are short-sighted in their thinking because eventually they will be the people with the largest income earning streams. Meanwhile, the past generation with the largest prior tax advantaged window squandered any attempts that deserve them saving of health and welfare benefits.
Easy solution: Make all tax hikes retroactive to 1/1/2021. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark

Hank Reardon

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jan 12, 2004
19,861
7,468
113
Bloomberg News reported Thursday afternoon that Biden is planning a capital gains tax hike to as high as 43.4% for wealthy Americans. The proposal would hike the capital gains rate to 39.6% for those earning $1 million or more, up from 20% currently, according to Bloomberg News, citing people familiar with the matter. Reuters and the New York Times later matched the headlines.
“Biden’s proposal effectively doubles the capital gains tax rate on $1 million income earners,” said Jack Ablin, Cresset Capital Management’s founding partner and CIO. “That’s a sizable cost increase to long-term investors. Expect selling this year if investors sense the proposal has a chance of becoming law next year.”
I don't claim to know shit, but it doesn't seem to me that most folks have much to worry about. I guess it all boils down to what "earner" means.

Eh, the actual legislation that gets passed rarely matches the rhetoric. Things that will "only affect those earning more that $XXXX per year" have a pesky way of affecting people who make far less than that by the time they they make it onto paper and get signed.

The awesome thing about soaking the rich is that a lot of people will discover that they're rich.
 

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,377
1,187
113
Easy solution: Make all tax hikes retroactive to 1/1/2021. :D
That's the problem with trying to plan anything in the future. You start the year with one set of rules and end with a different set. How do you plan when you're planning based on a moving target.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,457
29,633
113
Margaritaville
That's the problem with trying to plan anything in the future. You start the year with one set of rules and end with a different set. How do you plan when you're planning based on a moving target.
Yeah, but the problem JDB brought up is less about planning and more about basic equity. One generation reaps the benefits of years of low taxes, and then pays for those benefits by passing on to the next generation higher taxes and lower value. So don't let 'em.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,457
29,633
113
Margaritaville
Is that even legal? I know taxes and crimes are different, but wouldn't some kind of ex post facto thing come into play?
For the most part, the prohibition only applies to crimes, and previous retroactive taxes have been held constitutional, but if they reach back too far in time, the courts begin to have problems with them on procedural grounds. Dating a tax change to the beginning of the current year would be well within what the courts have allowed in the past.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
For the most part, the prohibition only applies to crimes, and previous retroactive taxes have been held constitutional, but if they reach back too far in time, the courts begin to have problems with them on procedural grounds. Dating a tax change to the beginning of the current year would be well within what the courts have allowed in the past.
I thought that might be the case, especially the reachback to just the beginning of the current period. And it would make sense they couldn't go back too far. Still, it would be a shitty thing to do. Something JDB would be fine with as long as it benefited him.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,457
29,633
113
Margaritaville
I thought that might be the case, especially the reachback to just the beginning of the current period. And it would make sense they couldn't go back too far. Still, it would be a shitty thing to do. Something JDB would be fine with as long as it benefited him.
Normally, I would agree with you, but the disparity between capital gains tax and income tax in this country is and always has been a moral travesty. People who actually produce economic output are punished in favor of people who simply profit from it.

If you're worried about who gets hurt, then let's include enough means-testing/bracketing to not screw over the people who can't afford to have their nest egg take a big hit. But this is a change in the tax code that is long overdue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
If you're worried about who gets hurt, then let's include enough means-testing/bracketing to not screw over the people who can't afford to have their nest egg take a big hit. But this is a change in the tax code that is long overdue.
The CNBC blurb that started this thread talked about this change applying to those earning over $1M. So we have to determine what earning means. AGI? And if the gain is $1.5M, then it would presumably only apply to the $0.5M, correct? At any rate, I'm not too concerned about this ruining anyone's retirement.
 

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,377
1,187
113
Yeah, but the problem JDB brought up is less about planning and more about basic equity. One generation reaps the benefits of years of low taxes, and then pays for those benefits by passing on to the next generation higher taxes and lower value. So don't let 'em.
Yeah that but I'm talking about individual planning of ones own finances. For example, I have an traditional IRA and I've been gradually converting it to a Roth IRA trying to stay within a certain tax bracket but now with Biden coming in I have no idea what the tax brackets will be for this years taxes so all I can do is wait and hope if they change that they do it early enough so that I can plan around them.

I had some stock that had appreciated quite a bit so last year late in the year I sold all the long term stuff because I figured that might get changed this year and they'll make it retroactive back to beginning of the year I'm sure. The increase is not the problem if they didn't change the rules in the middle of the game. If they increase taxes and make it become effective next year then I can plan and decide what I want to do.
 

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,377
1,187
113
Is that even legal? I know taxes and crimes are different, but wouldn't some kind of ex post facto thing come into play?
They do it all the time so any tax laws that change will likely be effective as if 1.-1-2021. I can definitely see the benefit of making tax laws effective at the beginning of the year simply from the IRS collecting them and doing one's own taxes. Some of the stuff is already complicated without having different rules within the same year. I normally do my own taxes with tax software but one year I received a K-1 and I finally just threw up my hands because I could NOT figure that one out and had to have them done by a professional.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
Some of the stuff is already complicated without having different rules within the same year. I normally do my own taxes with tax software but one year I received a K-1 and I finally just threw up my hands because I could NOT figure that one out and had to have them done by a professional.
Uh oh. I might be in trouble. I received a K-1 myself about 21 years ago and don't think I paid any taxes on the transaction. Lemme tell ya, that one's been expensive.

 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,457
29,633
113
Margaritaville
Yeah that but I'm talking about individual planning of ones own finances. For example, I have an traditional IRA and I've been gradually converting it to a Roth IRA trying to stay within a certain tax bracket but now with Biden coming in I have no idea what the tax brackets will be for this years taxes so all I can do is wait and hope if they change that they do it early enough so that I can plan around them.

I had some stock that had appreciated quite a bit so last year late in the year I sold all the long term stuff because I figured that might get changed this year and they'll make it retroactive back to beginning of the year I'm sure. The increase is not the problem if they didn't change the rules in the middle of the game. If they increase taxes and make it become effective next year then I can plan and decide what I want to do.
I understood you. I'm talking about not letting you do all that.
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,937
10,261
113
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,377
1,187
113
Uh oh. I might be in trouble. I received a K-1 myself about 21 years ago and don't think I paid any taxes on the transaction. Lemme tell ya, that one's been expensive.

I got them many years ago and just ignored them because I knew the IRS didn't track them then and knew that they weren't really gonna make any difference in my taxes.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
21,267
19,227
113
I got them many years ago and just ignored them because I knew the IRS didn't track them then and knew that they weren't really gonna make any difference in my taxes.
The IRS may not have tracked mine, but the INS sure did.

(You didn't look at the link, did you?)
 

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,377
1,187
113
The IRS may not have tracked mine, but the INS sure did.

(You didn't look at the link, did you?)
Yeah I did.... There's so many K-1s that I wasn't even sure we were talking about the same thing..... a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, etc. ???? The ones that I got were from a partnership and had about 20 numbers on it and each of those numbers seem to generate a new IRS form (I know that's an exaggeration but that's the way it seemed when I looked at it).